I have heard that, among RC and EO confessors, a penitent who struggles with frequent Masturbation is not always required to abstain from Communion. I was told by my confessor that this issue which I struggle with should not deny me the chance to partake of the sacrament every sunday. In fact, while he admitted that the Church holds it as a "gravely disordered act" my case it would not be considered a mortal sin due to his judgment on the state of my personality and factors which mitigated its seriousness.

I was at first puzzled by this, but I have heard that there are factors which mitigate the seriousness of this sin and that many confessors advice their penitents to receive Communion frequently as a way to combat this disordered act. I trust in the judgment of my confessor in this matter, yet my mind is still sometimes plagued with doubts. Is this the usual practice of EO confessors, as well as RC ones?

I think the penance proscribed in the canons is 40 days without communion and only bread and water for consumption. This is up to the confessor, and it all depends on the severity and frequency, etc. Most confessors show mercy on this and over time if they deem stricter means necessary to initiate repentance, then they go from there. It really just depends on the priest, like anything else.

I think the penance proscribed in the canons is 40 days without communion and only bread and water for consumption. This is up to the confessor, and it all depends on the severity and frequency, etc. Most confessors show mercy on this and over time if they deem stricter means necessary to initiate repentance, then they go from there. It really just depends on the priest, like anything else.

Yeah, I can imagine most EO priest this day and age use economy on that matter.

Regarding masturbation, the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches the following (bold added for emphasis):

Quote

2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.

The last part is the part I want to focus on, because I am sure that is the point that your confessor is also focusing on, which is things in your life known perhaps only to you and him that "lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability." This would mean that each and every act of masturbation in every person's life is not necessarily a mortal sin. Sure, it, like many other things, could have the potential to be in certain situations, but there are also many situations when it may not be. I would definitely trust the advice of your confessor on this. The Eucharist draws us closer to Jesus Christ. We commune with Him when we receive the Blessed Sacrament. As such, scrupulously abstaining from the Eucharist when not in a state of mortal sin is not only unnecessary, but is actually probably not spiritually healthy. Jesus, the Bread of Life which came down from Heaven, gave us Himself as holy food. We should make every effort to take advantage of this wonderful gift which none of us deserve, yet are freely given.

In Roman Catholicism, the views are pretty widespread. I've heard of a man who was told at 11 years old that he could go to Hell for masturbating. Other priests say exactly what others have said above, that you can receive communion and then go to confession at the next available time.

I once asked a fomer Jesuit seminarian on female masturbation, given the claim of the Onan incident as the scriptural basis of the teaching. He was utterly dumbfounded, and it was very amuzing to watch him go through the scholastic method to come up with an answer.

Thanks for the helpful advice. I have in the past suffered greatly from overscrupulousity and it has definitely damaged my spiritual life at times. Luckily I found a very good and helpful confessor who gave me the necessary counsel I need to fight this type of destructive thinking. Still, being sometimes plagued with overscrupulousness is a curse and I just try to find spiritual peace (Without having to run back to my confessor and confess not trusting in his judgment (which is kind of awkward and embarrassing to do).

I think it is important to keep in mind the clear scriptural teaching that marriage is (amongst other things, I stress) a way of controlling and channelling sexual energy in a way that is appropriate and godly.

For the vast majority of Christian history, if you struggled with lust, you got married -- and early.

In this world where those of us who are not monastics are marrying at 25, 30, 40, the struggle against self-abuse is not one which lasts a few years but rather the majority of our lives, which we live out in a culture suffused with free-of-consequences sex.

The "solution" (I use the term loosely) to lust for those of us who are in the world is to contract a marriage but, as we all know, the world simply doesn't work that way any more.

I think our confessors are right to take a more nuanced approach to this issue: it is not necessary to declare the activity completely guiltless or to go to the other extreme of excommunicating the few unmarried young people who come to church as it is.

I think it is important to keep in mind the clear scriptural teaching that marriage is (amongst other things, I stress) a way of controlling and channelling sexual energy in a way that is appropriate and godly.

For the vast majority of Christian history, if you struggled with lust, you got married -- and early.

In this world where those of us who are not monastics are marrying at 25, 30, 40, the struggle against self-abuse is not one which lasts a few years but rather the majority of our lives, which we live out in a culture suffused with free-of-consequences sex.

The "solution" (I use the term loosely) to lust for those of us who are in the world is to contract a marriage but, as we all know, the world simply doesn't work that way any more.

I think our confessors are right to take a more nuanced approach to this issue: it is not necessary to declare the activity completely guiltless or to go to the other extreme of excommunicating the few unmarried young people who come to church as it is.

If only some segment of Christian society would still be like some Orthodox Jews and Muslims and have matchmakers who set up a marriage with just a couple of meetings between a man and a woman looking to be married. It would make things much simpler.

I once asked a fomer Jesuit seminarian on female masturbation, given the claim of the Onan incident as the scriptural basis of the teaching. He was utterly dumbfounded, and it was very amuzing to watch him go through the scholastic method to come up with an answer.

I actually always though a biblical prohibition came from Christ's teachings about lust and adultery in the heart; it was only several years ago that I first encountered this term "Onanism".

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

Would you have the same reaction about the sins of pride, anger or covetousness?

it seems that people like to talk about fornication and adultery all the time. This one, not so much. But then I'm one who finds fornication and especially adultery far, far more serious than masturbation, rather than the other way around. In fact, I find the very idea of masturbation being more a "disordered act" or a graver, deadlier sin than adultery insane.

I think it is important to keep in mind the clear scriptural teaching that marriage is (amongst other things, I stress) a way of controlling and channelling sexual energy in a way that is appropriate and godly.

For the vast majority of Christian history, if you struggled with lust, you got married -- and early.

In this world where those of us who are not monastics are marrying at 25, 30, 40, the struggle against self-abuse is not one which lasts a few years but rather the majority of our lives, which we live out in a culture suffused with free-of-consequences sex.

The "solution" (I use the term loosely) to lust for those of us who are in the world is to contract a marriage but, as we all know, the world simply doesn't work that way any more.

I think our confessors are right to take a more nuanced approach to this issue: it is not necessary to declare the activity completely guiltless or to go to the other extreme of excommunicating the few unmarried young people who come to church as it is.

If only some segment of Christian society would still be like some Orthodox Jews and Muslims and have matchmakers who set up a marriage with just a couple of meetings between a man and a woman looking to be married. It would make things much simpler.

I once asked a fomer Jesuit seminarian on female masturbation, given the claim of the Onan incident as the scriptural basis of the teaching. He was utterly dumbfounded, and it was very amuzing to watch him go through the scholastic method to come up with an answer.

I actually always though a biblical prohibition came from Christ's teachings about lust and adultery in the heart; it was only several years ago that I first encountered this term "Onanism".

Yes, that would first occur to me. But no, Onan is blamed. This comes up when a spouse is entered into the equation. The Onanists make no distinction, whereas Christ leaves only the question if you are treating your spouse as a person or a thing.

I think it is important to keep in mind the clear scriptural teaching that marriage is (amongst other things, I stress) a way of controlling and channelling sexual energy in a way that is appropriate and godly.

For the vast majority of Christian history, if you struggled with lust, you got married -- and early.

In this world where those of us who are not monastics are marrying at 25, 30, 40, the struggle against self-abuse is not one which lasts a few years but rather the majority of our lives, which we live out in a culture suffused with free-of-consequences sex.

The "solution" (I use the term loosely) to lust for those of us who are in the world is to contract a marriage but, as we all know, the world simply doesn't work that way any more.

I think our confessors are right to take a more nuanced approach to this issue: it is not necessary to declare the activity completely guiltless or to go to the other extreme of excommunicating the few unmarried young people who come to church as it is.

If only some segment of Christian society would still be like some Orthodox Jews and Muslims and have matchmakers who set up a marriage with just a couple of meetings between a man and a woman looking to be married. It would make things much simpler.

Not with no fault divorce the law of the land it wouldn't.

The most contradictory and counter-to-all-jurisprudence concept in the entire corpus of anglosphere family law, if I may say so.

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

Would you have the same reaction about the sins of pride, anger or covetousness?

it seems that people like to talk about fornication and adultery all the time. This one, not so much. But then I'm one who finds fornication and especially adultery far, far more serious than masturbation, rather than the other way around. In fact, I find the very idea of masturbation being more a "disordered act" or a graver, deadlier sin than adultery insane.

I'm with you, Isa -- especially in the cultural context I described, above.

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

I am also tempted to wonder why you feel the need to needlessly chastise a fellow brother in Christ who is in need.

Believe me, I never, never talked about Masturbation on a public forum before. This is extremely embarrassing for me, but I hold that it's far better to discuss subject matter like this with other people and get their advice then to just bottle all these worries and fears up inside you until you either have a nervous breakdown or go crazy (Both of which almost happened to me a couple years ago because of overscrupulous fears). I would try and talk it over with someone else, like a family member, but no chance that's gonna happen (I tried to discuss this with my younger brother and he said "man, I'm not going to talk to you about that"). Besides my priest, this forum is about the only place I can turn to for advice on this difficult subject.

Our opinions might be helpful for you to have and bear in mind, but please do not treat them as determinative. You should be guided by and obedient to your confessor in such matters unless he says something which you fear might be damaging to your spiritual state.

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

I am also tempted to wonder why you feel the need to needlessly chastise a fellow brother in Christ who is in need.

Believe me, I never, never talked about Masturbation on a public forum before. This is extremely embarrassing for me, but I hold that it's far better to discuss subject matter like this with other people and get their advice then to just bottle all these worries and fears up inside you until you either have a nervous breakdown or go crazy (Both of which almost happened to me a couple years ago because of overscrupulous fears). I would try and talk it over with someone else, like a family member, but no chance that's gonna happen (I tried to discuss this with my younger brother and he said "man, I'm not going to talk to you about that"). Besides my priest, this forum is about the only place I can turn to for advice on this difficult subject.

Thank you all for your input.

You're fine, Robb. We're all adults here and should all be able to discuss this maturely. :)

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

Would you have the same reaction about the sins of pride, anger or covetousness?

Yes. I think so. We tend not to discuss these things though. When was the last time you remember multiple discussion threads on someone who steals habitually?...or kills with some regularity...or envies deeply enough for it to being to hinder their ability to face themselves in the mirror?

Actually the Holy Fathers tell us NOT to dwell on these things because that will lead us further into temptation. Rather they suggest that we pray and fast and give alms...that we spend time and energy cultivating those virtues that keep us from sin.

So I don't think I am too far off base here by suggesting that Robb is doing something that is most unwise spiritually and that the rest of you should not encourage it.

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

I am also tempted to wonder why you feel the need to needlessly chastise a fellow brother in Christ who is in need.

Believe me, I never, never talked about Masturbation on a public forum before. This is extremely embarrassing for me, but I hold that it's far better to discuss subject matter like this with other people and get their advice then to just bottle all these worries and fears up inside you until you either have a nervous breakdown or go crazy (Both of which almost happened to me a couple years ago because of overscrupulous fears). I would try and talk it over with someone else, like a family member, but no chance that's gonna happen (I tried to discuss this with my younger brother and he said "man, I'm not going to talk to you about that"). Besides my priest, this forum is about the only place I can turn to for advice on this difficult subject.

Thank you all for your input.

We all know I like to give you a hard time, but I have to commend you for having the courage to talk about this in an adult manner. Putting this up for all to see with the normal accompanying embarrassment you feel is also means of making you accountable for your actions which is a good thing, psychologically (and spiritually) speaking.

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

I am also tempted to wonder why you feel the need to needlessly chastise a fellow brother in Christ who is in need.

Believe me, I never, never talked about Masturbation on a public forum before. This is extremely embarrassing for me, but I hold that it's far better to discuss subject matter like this with other people and get their advice then to just bottle all these worries and fears up inside you until you either have a nervous breakdown or go crazy (Both of which almost happened to me a couple years ago because of overscrupulous fears). I would try and talk it over with someone else, like a family member, but no chance that's gonna happen (I tried to discuss this with my younger brother and he said "man, I'm not going to talk to you about that"). Besides my priest, this forum is about the only place I can turn to for advice on this difficult subject.

Thank you all for your input.

We all know I like to give you a hard time, but I have to commend you for having the courage to talk about this in an adult manner. Putting this up for all to see with the normal accompanying embarrassment you feel is also means of making you accountable for your actions which is a good thing, psychologically (and spiritually) speaking.

Yes. Please all do try to understand that I did not make my comments out of prudishness. I've explained them further and hope they are understood in the spirit that I offered them.

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

Would you have the same reaction about the sins of pride, anger or covetousness?

Yes. I think so. We tend not to discuss these things though. When was the last time you remember multiple discussion threads on someone who steals habitually?...or kills with some regularity...or envies deeply enough for it to being to hinder their ability to face themselves in the mirror?

Possibly because lust is something that most people struggle with on a very palpable level on a daily basis, especially now in today's culture of hypersexualized advertising. Part of the problem with it being a problem, I think, is our inability to discuss sexuality openly.

Quote

Actually the Holy Fathers tell us NOT to dwell on these things because that will lead us further into temptation. Rather they suggest that we pray and fast and give alms...that we spend time and energy cultivating those virtues that keep us from sin.

The Holy Fathers also tell us not to become repeatedly engaged with others in a contentious manner, yet we do that all the time. It's our whole reason for being here.

Quote

So I don't think I am too far off base here by suggesting that Robb is doing something that is most unwise spiritually and that the rest of you should not encourage it.

And I don't think I'm too far off base here in suggesting that unless you've struggled with this type of sinful behavior, you don't know what you're talking about (please note I'm not trying to be snide towards you, either, in saying that). People who want to take their faith seriously and avoid masturbating because of the way it affects your entire life often feel alone, like they're the only one who wants to stop. It takes great courage in today's world to do what Robb is doing. The real test is to see if we can actually discuss this in a plain, adult manner.

And I don't think I'm too far off base here in suggesting that unless you've struggled with this type of sinful behavior, you don't know what you're talking about (please note I'm not trying to be snide towards you, either, in saying that). People who want to take their faith seriously and avoid masturbating because of the way it affects your entire life often feel alone, like they're the only one who wants to stop. It takes great courage in today's world to do what Robb is doing. The real test is to see if we can actually discuss this in a plain, adult manner.

On this one, I will stay closer to the response of the Holy Fathers to their pupils who struggled with lust.

I have heard that, among RC and EO confessors, a penitent who struggles with frequent Masturbation is not always required to abstain from Communion. I was told by my confessor that this issue which I struggle with should not deny me the chance to partake of the sacrament every sunday. In fact, while he admitted that the Church holds it as a "gravely disordered act" my case it would not be considered a mortal sin due to his judgment on the state of my personality and factors which mitigated its seriousness.

I was at first puzzled by this, but I have heard that there are factors which mitigate the seriousness of this sin and that many confessors advice their penitents to receive Communion frequently as a way to combat this disordered act. I trust in the judgment of my confessor in this matter, yet my mind is still sometimes plagued with doubts. Is this the usual practice of EO confessors, as well as RC ones?

I suppose it depends on the person's individual struggle with the issue, and how often they've come for correction. I find a 3-step response appropriate:

1. Why is it (action, not person) bad? With masturbation, this answer must be comprehensive, covering the various physical (addiction), social (withdrawl, disordered view of relationships, etc.), and spiritual ailments it (and its usual compatriot, pornography) can lead to. I do not think that folks fully grasp how serious the entire experience is; when they hear about how long it takes to flush an image from our memory/consciousness*, how addictive sexual stimulation actually is (i.e. the rat study with 1 heroin group and 1 sexually stimulated group), etc., they fully understand the Church's wisdom in discouraging the practice.

2. How available forgiveness is. You know, speaking about St. Mary of Egypt, the Thief on the Cross, etc.

3. How to combat it. Full-scale spiritual assault on the passion.

Of course, this methodology is usually fairly effective with speaking with someone who is confronting a passion for the first time.

* Father Nathaniel (of blessed memory) of St. Theodore the Studite Monastery in Galion, OH (formerly of St. Gregory Palamas in Hayesville, OH) once went to our Summer Camp to give a presentation about contemporary TV. This was about 20 years ago. Before going to camp, he had a friend record about 20 minutes of MTV (at a random point in the day - nothing specific). He took the recording to camp, and played about 15-16 minutes of it, describing the various occult, sexual, and satanic images that would pop up in the videos. He did not prepare in advance for the presentation (i.e. when he saw the video with the kids, it was his first time seeing it). The presentation shocked the kids; but more so his final reflection (my paraphrase): "It will take me 4 1/2 months of intense praying and fasting to rid my mind of these images." As my koumbaro pointed out to others that day, that's assuming a monastic definition of intense prayer and fasting.

And I don't think I'm too far off base here in suggesting that unless you've struggled with this type of sinful behavior, you don't know what you're talking about (please note I'm not trying to be snide towards you, either, in saying that). People who want to take their faith seriously and avoid masturbating because of the way it affects your entire life often feel alone, like they're the only one who wants to stop. It takes great courage in today's world to do what Robb is doing. The real test is to see if we can actually discuss this in a plain, adult manner.

On this one, I will stay closer to the response of the Holy Fathers to their pupils who struggled with lust.

No harm, no foul. Just agreeing to disagree.

M.

Do the Fathers say anything about scrupulosity? As someone who struggles with being scrupulous as well, I can tell you that it can feel like absolute hell on earth sometimes. It feels like there is no mercy or no forgiveness, or if there is it is hopeless because it's not something I can ever attain. Part of getting relief from these false feelings, besides having a good confessor, is talking it over and getting reassurance from people. Robb did that (on a Christian forum) and should not be attacked for it. This should be a safe environment to be able to discuss such things maturely if need be.

And I don't think I'm too far off base here in suggesting that unless you've struggled with this type of sinful behavior, you don't know what you're talking about (please note I'm not trying to be snide towards you, either, in saying that). People who want to take their faith seriously and avoid masturbating because of the way it affects your entire life often feel alone, like they're the only one who wants to stop. It takes great courage in today's world to do what Robb is doing. The real test is to see if we can actually discuss this in a plain, adult manner.

On this one, I will stay closer to the response of the Holy Fathers to their pupils who struggled with lust.

No harm, no foul. Just agreeing to disagree.

M.

Do the Fathers say anything about scrupulosity? As someone who struggles with being scrupulous as well, I can tell you that it can feel like absolute hell on earth sometimes. It feels like there is no mercy or no forgiveness, or if there is it is hopeless because it's not something I can ever attain. Part of getting relief from these false feelings, besides having a good confessor, is talking it over and getting reassurance from people. Robb did that (on a Christian forum) and should not be attacked for it. This should be a safe environment to be able to discuss such things maturely if need be.

One of the signs of pernicious scrupulosity is the need to talk about your scrupulosity and sin.

You don't stop that by doing more of it.

I know it sounds harsh and I am not going to beat it to death here. But it is worth considering.

And I don't think I'm too far off base here in suggesting that unless you've struggled with this type of sinful behavior, you don't know what you're talking about (please note I'm not trying to be snide towards you, either, in saying that). People who want to take their faith seriously and avoid masturbating because of the way it affects your entire life often feel alone, like they're the only one who wants to stop. It takes great courage in today's world to do what Robb is doing. The real test is to see if we can actually discuss this in a plain, adult manner.

On this one, I will stay closer to the response of the Holy Fathers to their pupils who struggled with lust.

No harm, no foul. Just agreeing to disagree.

M.

Do the Fathers say anything about scrupulosity? As someone who struggles with being scrupulous as well, I can tell you that it can feel like absolute hell on earth sometimes. It feels like there is no mercy or no forgiveness, or if there is it is hopeless because it's not something I can ever attain. Part of getting relief from these false feelings, besides having a good confessor, is talking it over and getting reassurance from people. Robb did that (on a Christian forum) and should not be attacked for it. This should be a safe environment to be able to discuss such things maturely if need be.

One of the signs of pernicious scrupulosity is the need to talk about your scrupulosity and sin.

You don't stop that by doing more of it.

I know it sounds harsh and I am not going to beat it to death here. But it is worth considering.

Mary

I lied. I'll beat it this much further. Scrupulosity in secular terms is obsessive compulsive disorder. For both spiritual and psychological manifestations the cure comes in being busy: almsgiving: give of your time, your talent, your resources and do it till the nagging abates...and when the interior nagging begins again...start over. Prayer and alms-giving...being busy at all times is the best way to push back against this nagging.

Beating off a true temptation is not easy work, and it is never done. We can say "NO" to darn near everyone but ourselves.

Thanks for the helpful advice. I have in the past suffered greatly from overscrupulousity and it has definitely damaged my spiritual life at times. Luckily I found a very good and helpful confessor who gave me the necessary counsel I need to fight this type of destructive thinking. Still, being sometimes plagued with overscrupulousness is a curse and I just try to find spiritual peace (Without having to run back to my confessor and confess not trusting in his judgment (which is kind of awkward and embarrassing to do).

And I don't think I'm too far off base here in suggesting that unless you've struggled with this type of sinful behavior, you don't know what you're talking about (please note I'm not trying to be snide towards you, either, in saying that). People who want to take their faith seriously and avoid masturbating because of the way it affects your entire life often feel alone, like they're the only one who wants to stop. It takes great courage in today's world to do what Robb is doing. The real test is to see if we can actually discuss this in a plain, adult manner.

On this one, I will stay closer to the response of the Holy Fathers to their pupils who struggled with lust.

No harm, no foul. Just agreeing to disagree.

M.

Do the Fathers say anything about scrupulosity? As someone who struggles with being scrupulous as well, I can tell you that it can feel like absolute hell on earth sometimes. It feels like there is no mercy or no forgiveness, or if there is it is hopeless because it's not something I can ever attain. Part of getting relief from these false feelings, besides having a good confessor, is talking it over and getting reassurance from people. Robb did that (on a Christian forum) and should not be attacked for it. This should be a safe environment to be able to discuss such things maturely if need be.

One of the signs of pernicious scrupulosity is the need to talk about your scrupulosity and sin.

You don't stop that by doing more of it.

I know it sounds harsh and I am not going to beat it to death here. But it is worth considering.

Mary

I lied. I'll beat it this much further. Scrupulosity in secular terms is obsessive compulsive disorder. For both spiritual and psychological manifestations the cure comes in being busy: almsgiving: give of your time, your talent, your resources and do it till the nagging abates...and when the interior nagging begins again...start over. Prayer and alms-giving...being busy at all times is the best way to push back against this nagging.

Beating off a true temptation is not easy work, and it is never done. We can say "NO" to darn near everyone but ourselves.

M.

Since scrupulosity can be a symptom of a legitimate mental disorder (OCD) as you said, it may take more than prayer and almsgiving. It may take counseling and/or medication. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that part of the healing process could be discussing your issues with other people.

Our opinions might be helpful for you to have and bear in mind, but please do not treat them as determinative. You should be guided by and obedient to your confessor in such matters unless he says something which you fear might be damaging to your spiritual state.

I agree with this.

Being new to Orthodoxy and practicing confession, I have recently struggled with questions on how confession and Communion should be approached. From what little experience I have had with my priest and what I have found to read on the subject, here is my understanding.

It is typically one's parish priest who both hears confessions and serves the Eucharist. He has a responsibility as a confessor to provoke you to repentence of your sins, but more importantly to guide you in what is necessary to reconcile you or keep you reconciled to the church. As serving the Mass, he has a responsibility to guard the Eucharist and give it only to those who are united in communion with his church and to prevent anyone from taking it unto condemnation. It is one thing to abstain from Communion under the direction of ecclesiastical authority, and another to simply refuse the invitation when it is given. I once heard this referred to as saying "no thanks" to the Lord's meal of "Thanksgiving" (Eucharist).

As a spiritual "child", you should submit in obedience to him out of love and trust. Unless he tells you that something you know to be a sin is not a sin and does not need to be confessed, or gives such a strict pennance that you lose all hope of salvation, you should trust him more than yourself. While the canons often call for what we would today consider to be extreme pennances, they also give the bishop/priest/confessor the authority to exercise extreme economy when and where they see fit to work toward one's salvation. Remember it was to the apostles and passed on to bishops and exercised through priests that the authority to bind and loose was given, not a rule book that must be strictly followed with no exceptions, and not just simply left to the personal discretion of individuals who may do everything from self-justify to being over-scrupulous of themselves.

If it helps you (I know it helps me, and I don't particularly know if your church has a rule of prayer for preparing for Communion), here is a link I found with the pre-communion prayers that you would typically find listed in an Orthodox prayer book (I believe this is a copy of the translation used in the Jordanville book). Reading these prayers before receiving Communion will both fill you with fear of God as a "consuming fire", and at the same time give you hope in His mercy that you will partake for pruification, healing, and defense against future sins and not toward condemnation.

I have heard that, among RC and EO confessors, a penitent who struggles with frequent Masturbation is not always required to abstain from Communion. I was told by my confessor that this issue which I struggle with should not deny me the chance to partake of the sacrament every sunday. In fact, while he admitted that the Church holds it as a "gravely disordered act" my case it would not be considered a mortal sin due to his judgment on the state of my personality and factors which mitigated its seriousness.

I was at first puzzled by this, but I have heard that there are factors which mitigate the seriousness of this sin and that many confessors advice their penitents to receive Communion frequently as a way to combat this disordered act. I trust in the judgment of my confessor in this matter, yet my mind is still sometimes plagued with doubts. Is this the usual practice of EO confessors, as well as RC ones?

It's been some years since I read this, so I won't try to say too much about it, but you may find it helpful:

Since scrupulosity can be a symptom of a legitimate mental disorder (OCD) as you said, it may take more than prayer and almsgiving. It may take counseling and/or medication. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that part of the healing process could be discussing your issues with other people.

I have found several truths in life:

1. Most mental illness can be cured using the spiritual guidance of the desert fathers...rigorously applied.

2. Most talk therapy winds up being the next best thing to useless...entirely.

3. Nothing will happen unless you make it happen.

4. Unless you are running around naked in traffic, drugs administered for the average neurosis tend to make you complacent and fat, rather than well. I began therapy about 20 years ago with seven other women that I knew who entered the mental health system about the same time I did. I am the only one who refused drug therapies and I am the only one who has not undergone electroshock therapy to try to undo what the meds finally did to these women.

Now you can shoot all kinds of holes in this if you choose but I will follow what I have found through experience.

Since scrupulosity can be a symptom of a legitimate mental disorder (OCD) as you said, it may take more than prayer and almsgiving. It may take counseling and/or medication. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that part of the healing process could be discussing your issues with other people.

I have found several truths in life:

1. Most mental illness can be cured using the spiritual guidance of the desert fathers...rigorously applied.

2. Most talk therapy winds up being the next best thing to useless...entirely.

3. Nothing will happen unless you make it happen.

4. Unless you are running around naked in traffic, drugs administered for the average neurosis tend to make you complacent and fat, rather than well. I began therapy about 20 years ago with seven other women that I knew who entered the mental health system about the same time I did. I am the only one who refused drug therapies and I am the only one who has not undergone electroshock therapy to try to undo what the meds finally did to these women.

Now you can shoot all kinds of holes in this if you choose but I will follow what I have found through experience.

Talking about a neurosis...feeds the wolf.

Don't feed the wolf.

M.

There is no one-size-fits-all with this kind of thing. Just because medication may not have been the best thing for you or for those women that you knew doesn't mean that it is harmful for everyone. I happen to be on medication for anxiety and, while it has not totally gone away, it is much more tolerable now than it used to be. The same goes for talking with peers...you can't say that no one will benefit from that.

I have heard that, among RC and EO confessors, a penitent who struggles with frequent Masturbation is not always required to abstain from Communion. I was told by my confessor that this issue which I struggle with should not deny me the chance to partake of the sacrament every sunday. In fact, while he admitted that the Church holds it as a "gravely disordered act" my case it would not be considered a mortal sin due to his judgment on the state of my personality and factors which mitigated its seriousness.

I was at first puzzled by this, but I have heard that there are factors which mitigate the seriousness of this sin and that many confessors advice their penitents to receive Communion frequently as a way to combat this disordered act. I trust in the judgment of my confessor in this matter, yet my mind is still sometimes plagued with doubts. Is this the usual practice of EO confessors, as well as RC ones?

It's been some years since I read this, so I won't try to say too much about it, but you may find it helpful:

I have heard that, among RC and EO confessors, a penitent who struggles with frequent Masturbation is not always required to abstain from Communion. I was told by my confessor that this issue which I struggle with should not deny me the chance to partake of the sacrament every sunday. In fact, while he admitted that the Church holds it as a "gravely disordered act" my case it would not be considered a mortal sin due to his judgment on the state of my personality and factors which mitigated its seriousness.

I was at first puzzled by this, but I have heard that there are factors which mitigate the seriousness of this sin and that many confessors advice their penitents to receive Communion frequently as a way to combat this disordered act. I trust in the judgment of my confessor in this matter, yet my mind is still sometimes plagued with doubts. Is this the usual practice of EO confessors, as well as RC ones?

It's been some years since I read this, so I won't try to say too much about it, but you may find it helpful:

I began therapy about 20 years ago with seven other women that I knew who entered the mental health system about the same time I did. I am the only one who refused drug therapies and I am the only one who has not undergone electroshock therapy to try to undo what the meds finally did to these women.

I don't know how much stock I would put in that kind of anecdotal evidence.

I am always tempted to wonder, when I see a thread on this topic, which is the worse sin...to masturbate incessantly, or to talk about it incessantly...publicly.

Curious.

Would you have the same reaction about the sins of pride, anger or covetousness?

Yes. I think so. We tend not to discuss these things though. When was the last time you remember multiple discussion threads on someone who steals habitually?...or kills with some regularity...or envies deeply enough for it to being to hinder their ability to face themselves in the mirror?

Possibly because lust is something that most people struggle with on a very palpable level on a daily basis, especially now in today's culture of hypersexualized advertising. Part of the problem with it being a problem, I think, is our inability to discuss sexuality openly.

Quote

Actually the Holy Fathers tell us NOT to dwell on these things because that will lead us further into temptation. Rather they suggest that we pray and fast and give alms...that we spend time and energy cultivating those virtues that keep us from sin.

The Holy Fathers also tell us not to become repeatedly engaged with others in a contentious manner, yet we do that all the time. It's our whole reason for being here.

Quote

So I don't think I am too far off base here by suggesting that Robb is doing something that is most unwise spiritually and that the rest of you should not encourage it.

And I don't think I'm too far off base here in suggesting that unless you've struggled with this type of sinful behavior, you don't know what you're talking about (please note I'm not trying to be snide towards you, either, in saying that). People who want to take their faith seriously and avoid masturbating because of the way it affects your entire life often feel alone, like they're the only one who wants to stop. It takes great courage in today's world to do what Robb is doing. The real test is to see if we can actually discuss this in a plain, adult manner.

I began therapy about 20 years ago with seven other women that I knew who entered the mental health system about the same time I did. I am the only one who refused drug therapies and I am the only one who has not undergone electroshock therapy to try to undo what the meds finally did to these women.

I don't know how much stock I would put in that kind of anecdotal evidence.

:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

All evidence of the neuroses and their treatments is more anecdotal than anything else. Any competent doctor will tell you that drug trials are just that...trials...and no drug, particularly drugs used to treat neuroses, will affect all people the same way, and they often do more harm than good, and most of them loose their effectiveness over time, and only masque the symptoms but do not cure the neurotic.

The news is not good on the drug front unless you benefit from a climate of treatment that allows...nay encourages self-diagnosis...and liberal dispensation of tabs and caps and drops and tinctures.

The same goes for talking with peers...you can't say that no one will benefit from that.

I talked with peers for over 30 years as I sinned and felt guilty. I talked incessantly.

When I shut up and chose to reorient my life in Christ, I no longer felt the need [nor did I have the time] for the constant chatter.

See what the fathers say about idle talk...and they are not just talking about gossip.

So then you don't think anything like grief support groups have any merit?

Stay on target, Wyatt.

Is grief a neuroses?

I am speaking of neuroses that can also be sins.

I am not aiming at every possible emotional response.

M.

Grief can lead to neurosis. Neurosis can worsen grief. Okay, to be more specific and to relate more clearly to the subject at hand, let me ask this: do you think that all support groups are just "idle talk"?

Just curious about your thought process. That does not require judgement. Now, IF I would have written that you were a hypocritical dolt who always has to have the last word, THEN I would have judged you. But that is NOT what I wrote. I was simply interested in how your tendency to rapidly rack up post count on a thread fit in with your supposed conversion from idle chatter. That really does not required judgment. After all, you have 4266 posts to your credit in just over a year. That is nearly nine (9) post for every day that you have been here. I, on the other hand, am known to be a motormouth and to engage in nearly every conversation in my vicinity, yet I have only managed to rack up 1657 posts in just under four years. I guess that I am just jealous that someone who has been saved from the sin of idle talk can so completely own me considering that I have never been inhibited in this regard. I must be doing it wrong. Perhaps I should stop talking and do more writing, and then I too can overcome this sin.

/on the other hand, methinks that one who types much also speaks much.

Just curious about your thought process. That does not require judgement. Now, IF I would have written that you were a hypocritical dolt who always has to have the last word, THEN I would have judged you. But that is NOT what I wrote. I was simply interested in how your tendency to rapidly rack up post count on a thread fit in with your supposed conversion from idle chatter. That really does not required judgment. After all, you have 4266 posts to your credit in just over a year. That is nearly nine (9) post for every day that you have been here. I, on the other hand, am known to be a motormouth and to engage in nearly every conversation in my vicinity, yet I have only managed to rack up 1657 posts in just under four years. I guess that I am just jealous that someone who has been saved from the sin of idle talk can so completely own me considering that I have never been inhibited in this regard. I must be doing it wrong. Perhaps I should stop talking and do more writing, and then I too can overcome this sin.

/on the other hand, methinks that one who types much also speaks much.

:) I speak very little. I live entirely alone in a very small rural town where I am something of an enigma to most of the residents since I am a late middle-aged woman living alone and a Catholic. My closest family is 300 miles away, aside from my mother who speaks very little to me from week to week for she is aged and has other more worldly interests, so I have little in my life that interests her. She talks much more to my brother and sister than she does to me. We go out twice a month for supplies for our respective domiciles. I have no friends nearby. I use the Internet as part of an evangelical ministry and other than that I pray the hours, do spiritual and theological reading, and work on my house and yard and do some spiritual direction.

I think what elijahmaria has to say has a greater worth than the credit its getting. No there is nothing wrong with speaking about issues. We are told to help our brothers carry their burdens. But at the same time it is true that the Fathers over and over say the best way to conquer lust is by physical labor and keeping your mind clear of it (including talking about it.) We all would benefit (myself being the first) if we did less talking and more doing. That's all I think she's trying to say.

I think what elijahmaria has to say has a greater worth than the credit its getting. No there is nothing wrong with speaking about issues. We are told to help our brothers carry their burdens. But at the same time it is true that the Fathers over and over say the best way to conquer lust is by physical labor and keeping your mind clear of it (including talking about it.) We all would benefit (myself being the first) if we did less talking and more doing. That's all I think she's trying to say.

Yes, I think so, too.

Mind you, I needed some of the following-up, explanatory posts to perceive the wisdom.

I think what elijahmaria has to say has a greater worth than the credit its getting. No there is nothing wrong with speaking about issues. We are told to help our brothers carry their burdens. But at the same time it is true that the Fathers over and over say the best way to conquer lust is by physical labor and keeping your mind clear of it (including talking about it.) We all would benefit (myself being the first) if we did less talking and more doing. That's all I think she's trying to say.

Yes, I think so, too.

Mind you, I needed some of the following-up, explanatory posts to perceive the wisdom.

I think what elijahmaria has to say has a greater worth than the credit its getting. No there is nothing wrong with speaking about issues. We are told to help our brothers carry their burdens. But at the same time it is true that the Fathers over and over say the best way to conquer lust is by physical labor and keeping your mind clear of it (including talking about it.) We all would benefit (myself being the first) if we did less talking and more doing. That's all I think she's trying to say.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that I do suffer from OCD. It comes and goes and can get real bad sometimes. When I am plagued by fear or doubts about things, I try to mentally talk myself out of it by using rational arguments against what I'm obsessing about. This can be bad at present cause I'm unemployed so I have a lot of time on my hands, time which causes my mind to start needlessly wandering and worrying about stuff.

It seems like my mind is always trying to either make me worry or cause doubts about things that I have always believed or even advice that I've received (Such as the counsel that my confessor gave me). It's a terrible thing to go through. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Also yes I'm on medication for OCD/Anxiety/Depression. It is a constant, uphill climb. I love the Church and religion and it pains me that it should be the thing to cause so much of this suffering (Or at least what my mind uses to make me suffer).

Since scrupulosity can be a symptom of a legitimate mental disorder (OCD) as you said, it may take more than prayer and almsgiving. It may take counseling and/or medication. I don't think it's far-fetched to say that part of the healing process could be discussing your issues with other people.

I have found several truths in life:

1. Most mental illness can be cured using the spiritual guidance of the desert fathers...rigorously applied.

2. Most talk therapy winds up being the next best thing to useless...entirely.

3. Nothing will happen unless you make it happen.

4. Unless you are running around naked in traffic, drugs administered for the average neurosis tend to make you complacent and fat, rather than well. I began therapy about 20 years ago with seven other women that I knew who entered the mental health system about the same time I did. I am the only one who refused drug therapies and I am the only one who has not undergone electroshock therapy to try to undo what the meds finally did to these women.

Now you can shoot all kinds of holes in this if you choose but I will follow what I have found through experience.

Talking about a neurosis...feeds the wolf.

Don't feed the wolf.

M.

There is no one-size-fits-all with this kind of thing. Just because medication may not have been the best thing for you or for those women that you knew doesn't mean that it is harmful for everyone. I happen to be on medication for anxiety and, while it has not totally gone away, it is much more tolerable now than it used to be. The same goes for talking with peers...you can't say that no one will benefit from that.

I resisted going on medication for a long time, but finally decided that I had to because my obsession were starting to affect both my mental and even psychical health. I find that as Wyatt said, they don't completely remove all doubt and worry, but they do lessen their severity. Everyone is different and every mind works differently. I know that many religious people try to blame mental illness on self absorption and pride/vanity. However when one is predisposed towards self absorption by mental illness, it isn't always easy to just turn it off by focusing on something else more higher or complex then oneself.

Oh yeah I forgot to mention that I do suffer from OCD. It comes and goes and can get real bad sometimes. When I am plagued by fear or doubts about things, I try to mentally talk myself out of it by using rational arguments against what I'm obsessing about. This can be bad at present cause I'm unemployed so I have a lot of time on my hands, time which causes my mind to start needlessly wandering and worrying about stuff.

It seems like my mind is always trying to either make me worry or cause doubts about things that I have always believed or even advice that I've received (Such as the counsel that my confessor gave me). It's a terrible thing to go through. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy.

Also yes I'm on medication for OCD/Anxiety/Depression. It is a constant, uphill climb. I love the Church and religion and it pains me that it should be the thing to cause so much of this suffering (Or at least what my mind uses to make me suffer).

Have you talked to your doctor about your recent severe obsessions? Perhaps he or she would decide to either adjust your dosage or try a different medication. I was doing fairly okay recently as far as my anxiety goes, but then I had my injury in which I broke both of my legs and my jaw and I have been pretty shaken since that happened. If the fear does not subside I may discuss a dosage increase on my medication because, honestly, no one should have to live in a constant state of severe fear and panic. Prayer and spiritual exercises are good for everyone to practice, but when something is misfiring in your brain that is causing you to constantly feel ill, that is a medical condition and deserves medical treatment. I think oftentimes people don't take mental disorders as seriously as other diseases and disorders, but they are every bit as real and every bit as serious, and they can have just as big of an impact as physical conditions.

After 30 years of dealing with this issue in confession and pastoral situations there are things I'd like to contribute to the discussion but I am afraid it will start another round of the Ambrose and Mary show. There are other mature priests on the forum and it would be good to hear from them.

The reason I say it would be good to hear from priests is this ----- all the men who masturbate (and that is probably 99%, even if only infrequently) are very often too shy to speak of it so there is not a whole lot of peer interaction and learning going on. Priests on the other hand get to talk to dozens of men on this topic and often for long conversations. They develop an overarching view which the solitary masturbator doesn't have. They learn that some methods work to lessen it in some men and some in others. They can have good pragmatic advice for each specific situation.

I once asked a fomer Jesuit seminarian on female masturbation, given the claim of the Onan incident as the scriptural basis of the teaching. He was utterly dumbfounded, and it was very amuzing to watch him go through the scholastic method to come up with an answer.

I once asked a fomer Jesuit seminarian on female masturbation, given the claim of the Onan incident as the scriptural basis of the teaching. He was utterly dumbfounded, and it was very amuzing to watch him go through the scholastic method to come up with an answer.

Agreed. My experience is that most laymen who speak openly about masturbation do not think that there is anything wrong with it, and that it is a natural function. Those that believe (or have been conditioned to believe) that there is something wrong with masturbation are too ashamed to say anything about it (hence my respect for those who have confess such here, like Rob). That pretty much (with rare exceptions) leaves priests as the few sources for advice for one wanting to overcome this. Thanks for making this point.

After 30 years of dealing with this issue in confession and pastoral situations there are things I'd like to contribute to the discussion but I am afraid it will start another round of the Ambrose and Mary show. There are other mature priests on the forum and it would be good to hear from them.

The reason I say it would be good to hear from priests is this ----- all the men who masturbate (and that is probably 99%, even if only infrequently) are very often too shy to speak of it so there is not a whole lot of peer interaction and learning going on. Priests on the other hand get to talk to dozens of men on this topic and often for long conversations. They develop an overarching view which the solitary masturbator doesn't have. They learn that some methods work to lessen it in some men and some in others. They can have good pragmatic advice for each specific situation.

Same here. The difficulty with the subject of maturbation is that it is impossible to really discuss the subject outside of the greater context of sex in general. I first became suspicious of the "masturbation is bad" crowd when I started to notice the big picture of the male situation. The fact is that a normal, healthy male is going to manufacture semen. That semen will be released at some point. Since the prudes teach that 1) wet dreams are bad and make you unclean, 2) masturbation is bad, and 3) sex is bad unless a) you are married and b) you are trying to make a baby, there is no other conclusion to make than a young man is going to be in some state of sin due to a perfectly natural body function. Given this, it seems that masturbation is the lesser of the evils since there is no chance of getting a girl pregnant, you are not "using a woman for your own pleasure", and since you have some control over the situation, you are not making quite the mess of a wet dream. Sure, I have read where many of the Fathers have overcome nature. That is never easy, but going off into the wilderness by yourself and hiding from the world would probably make some things easier to overcome. I know, in my younger days, when I was sitting in the woods by myself at 2 am waiting for the sun to come up while hunting, masturbation was the absolute LAST thing on my mind. Sitting in a classroom in springtime surrounded by the crowning jewels of God's creation, that was another matter completely.

Just to be clear, I am rather agnostic about this subject. I am not going to tell someone "go ahead, do what feels good". On the other hand, I am not going to judge someone over the matter either.

I once asked a fomer Jesuit seminarian on female masturbation, given the claim of the Onan incident as the scriptural basis of the teaching. He was utterly dumbfounded, and it was very amuzing to watch him go through the scholastic method to come up with an answer.

Have you talked to your doctor about your recent severe obsessions? Perhaps he or she would decide to either adjust your dosage or try a different medication. I was doing fairly okay recently as far as my anxiety goes, but then I had my injury in which I broke both of my legs and my jaw and I have been pretty shaken since that happened. If the fear does not subside I may discuss a dosage increase on my medication because, honestly, no one should have to live in a constant state of severe fear and panic. Prayer and spiritual exercises are good for everyone to practice, but when something is misfiring in your brain that is causing you to constantly feel ill, that is a medical condition and deserves medical treatment. I think oftentimes people don't take mental disorders as seriously as other diseases and disorders, but they are every bit as real and every bit as serious, and they can have just as big of an impact as physical conditions.

I hear what you and Robb are saying but don't forget, while you are at it, that we can change the way our brain "fires" by our thinking and our behaviors.

With a neurosis, you can take a crippled life and turn it around in a more solid and complete way than you can imagine at the moment. It would take you to the edge of what you presume your abilities to be at the moment and you'd have to force yourselves over that edge, but what you find on the other side is something far more stable than the meds can ever give to you. As long as reality is there for you to access, with neuroses, there is every chance you can get there and stay there. It is a much better place, but you must force yourselves to do things which, for the moment, you have declared impossible or something you ought not have to do. This is a recipe for failure spiritually and psychologically.

A wet dream is involuntary. You dont even know you're doing it. You're asleep. And well, the other one......

primuspilus

There are prayers for a priest to say if he has an involuntary emission before serving the Liturgy. While it's involuntary, it still embodies our general sinful state disconnected from God. (Such prayers (http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/purityrule.aspx) I find helpful even for us laypeople who struggle with the more voluntary form.)

If we confess in our prayers the sins we commit "voluntarily or involuntarily, consciously or unconsciously", we can commit involuntary and unconscious sins. It's not like a voluntary masturbation session, but it's still a sin according to the Church.

I don't know that I agree with all of the reasoning behind it, but it is what it is. I'm not going to argue with the Church over it.

There are prayers for a priest to say if he has an involuntary emission before serving the Liturgy. While it's involuntary, it still embodies our general sinful state disconnected from God. (Such prayers I find helpful even for us laypeople who struggle with the more voluntary form.)

If we confess in our prayers the sins we commit "voluntarily or involuntarily, consciously or unconsciously", we can commit involuntary and unconscious sins. It's not like a voluntary masturbation session, but it's still a sin according to the Church.

I don't know that I agree with all of the reasoning behind it, but it is what it is. I'm not going to argue with the Church over it.

How is it a sin? Its something that happens naturally like peeing the bed. Your body vacates the stuff all on its own. Thats like saying scratching your junk in your sleep is a sin...dont understand that one at all.

primuspilus

P.S. I do have patience..its actually my middl.....actually no, its Robert :)

There are prayers for a priest to say if he has an involuntary emission before serving the Liturgy. While it's involuntary, it still embodies our general sinful state disconnected from God. (Such prayers I find helpful even for us laypeople who struggle with the more voluntary form.)

If we confess in our prayers the sins we commit "voluntarily or involuntarily, consciously or unconsciously", we can commit involuntary and unconscious sins. It's not like a voluntary masturbation session, but it's still a sin according to the Church.

I don't know that I agree with all of the reasoning behind it, but it is what it is. I'm not going to argue with the Church over it.

How is it a sin? Its something that happens naturally like peeing the bed. Your body vacates the stuff all on its own. Thats like saying scratching your junk in your sleep is a sin...dont understand that one at all.

primuspilus

P.S. I do have patience..its actually my middl.....actually no, its Robert :)

Typically, it's considered a sin because it's a sign of our fallen nature, like menstruation. Hence it is an "involuntary sin".

There are prayers for a priest to say if he has an involuntary emission before serving the Liturgy. While it's involuntary, it still embodies our general sinful state disconnected from God. (Such prayers I find helpful even for us laypeople who struggle with the more voluntary form.)

If we confess in our prayers the sins we commit "voluntarily or involuntarily, consciously or unconsciously", we can commit involuntary and unconscious sins. It's not like a voluntary masturbation session, but it's still a sin according to the Church.

I don't know that I agree with all of the reasoning behind it, but it is what it is. I'm not going to argue with the Church over it.

How is it a sin? Its something that happens naturally like peeing the bed. Your body vacates the stuff all on its own. Thats like saying scratching your junk in your sleep is a sin...dont understand that one at all.

primuspilus

P.S. I do have patience..its actually my middl.....actually no, its Robert :)

Typically, it's considered a sin because it's a sign of our fallen nature, like menstruation. Hence it is an "involuntary sin".

Typically, it's considered a sin because it's a sign of our fallen nature, like menstruation. Hence it is an "involuntary sin".

Using that logic, so is breathing. Dont take this the wrong way, but i would like a source for that information stated please. I want to learn more about this.

primuspilus

I guess that I don't believe in "involuntary sins", hence my confusion about this subject. I believe in sins caused by ignorance, but these are still intentional actions (even if the consequences were not intentional) and not natural actions. I have a hard time seeing natural actions done by all humans, and even most advanced primates, as being sinful. Does a monkey sin when it masturbates? Does a Chicken sin when it has its period? If so, eating eggs must be mortal sin. We keep chickens just so that we can use the product of their mensuration, even to the point of painting Icons with it.

Typically, it's considered a sin because it's a sign of our fallen nature, like menstruation. Hence it is an "involuntary sin".

Using that logic, so is breathing. Dont take this the wrong way, but i would like a source for that information stated please. I want to learn more about this.

primuspilus

I guess that I don't believe in "involuntary sins", hence my confusion about this subject. I believe in sins caused by ignorance, but these are still intentional actions (even if the consequences were not intentional) and not natural actions. I have a hard time seeing natural actions done by all humans, and even most advanced primates, as being sinful. Does a monkey sin when it masturbates? Does a Chicken sin when it has its period? If so, eating eggs must be mortal sin. We keep chickens just so that we can use the product of their mensuration, even to the point of painting Icons with it.

Perhaps it is more a product of sin. Death is certainly a product of sin even though scientifically (not theologically) it is the most natural thing you can do.

I guess that I don't believe in "involuntary sins", hence my confusion about this subject.

Sin is not about breaking rules, but rather missing the mark. Masturbation is missing the mark, whether it happens intentionally in front of porn, or unintentionally in one's sleep. We miss the mark when we are not the humans God created us to be, and sometimes that happens whether we want it or not.

Does a monkey sin when it masturbates? Does a Chicken sin when it has its period?

Masturbation is an intentional act (even if it occurs in one's sleep, it is not a passive event), so it does not correlate with menstruation.

Animals cannot sin because they have no nous. They are "irrational beings". We don't look to the animals for our morality, because then we would have to accept polygamy, incest, murder, homosexuality, etc. We look to the Church for our morality, and to Christ.

Animals aren't sinful because they have no ability to consider their behavior. They act on their instincts, which are distorted by the fall and death, just as ours are. Unlike us, they have no higher function to govern themselves, so they do whatever comes to them.

God loves us, he knows we can't help it, and forgives us, of course. We need not despair over the sins we commit unawares. But it helps no one to say such things aren't sins, despite what the Church says. We confess them and move on, trusting that these things will be sorted out as we grow in holiness.

At least that's what my priest has said on the topic. I think it makes complete sense.

How is it a sin? Its something that happens naturally like peeing the bed. Your body vacates the stuff all on its own.

How can you say it's natural? Nature is affected by sin and death, so we have no idea what "natural" bodily functions are. "It's natural" is the same argument the homosexual crowd uses. It may be natural to any of us, but that does not make it objectively natural.

A number of the Fathers taught that human bodily functions, specifically reproductive ones, were radically different before the Fall. One good, smaller book that touches on that subject is "The First Created Man" by St Symeon the New Theologian.

As I said in response to Punch, sin is about missing the mark that God intended us to hit. When we do these things—intentionally or not—it is missing the mark. That the Church provides prayers for us for these occasions shows that she is compassionate, but firm.

It would be dangerous to get too proud and too sure of the perfection of our physical constitution that our bodies may not rebel against us. It is the way of things, we are weak and helpless creatures, but I have no doubt God forgives us for such involuntary things.

A wet dream is involuntary. You don't even know you're doing it. You're asleep. And well, the other one......

primuspilus

But a wet dream involves subconscious thoughts and yes many times people wake up in the middle of them and don't (or simply can't) try to stop . There is a whole school of thought which says that subconscious thought and desires should and can be controlled because they are products of our conscious desire for sin (I don't actually hold to that, but the theory does exist).

I take my priest advice that while masturbation is a disordered act and not a good thing to partake of, it still does not bar a person from reception of Communion. Receiving frequently can actually lesson ones desire to commit this act. I have recently found this to be true, I stood away from Communion for two years because of great confusion and desire not to make a sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist. However when I started to receive again regularly not that long ago, I noticed that my passion and desire to commit this act actually declined. I can't explain it other then it is the grace of God which is lessening my desire for this disordered habit, but it does seem to be true in my case.

A wet dream is involuntary. You don't even know you're doing it. You're asleep. And well, the other one......

primuspilus

But a wet dream involves subconscious thoughts and yes many times people wake up in the middle of them and don't (or simply can't) try to stop . There is a whole school of thought which says that subconscious thought and desires should and can be controlled because they are products of our conscious desire for sin (I don't actually hold to that, but the theory does exist).

I take my priest advice that while masturbation is a disordered act and not a good thing to partake of, it still does not bar a person from reception of Communion. Receiving frequently can actually lesson ones desire to commit this act. I have recently found this to be true, I stood away from Communion for two years because of great confusion and desire not to make a sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist. However when I started to receive again regularly not that long ago, I noticed that my passion and desire to commit this act actually declined. I can't explain it other then it is the grace of God which is lessening my desire for this disordered habit, but it does seem to be true in my case.

How is it a sin? Its something that happens naturally like peeing the bed. Your body vacates the stuff all on its own.

How can you say it's natural? Nature is affected by sin and death, so we have no idea what "natural" bodily functions are. "It's natural" is the same argument the homosexual crowd uses. It may be natural to any of us, but that does not make it objectively natural.

I do not think that you can equate masturbation and homosexuality. My guess is that something greater than 99% of all males masturbate. I don't think that there are anywhere near that number riding on the Hershey Highway. Using this theory, one would seem far more "natural" than the other.

On the other hand, tying masturbation to homosexuality does bring the potential sinfulness of the former more into focus, particularly for those like me that consider homosexuality a sinful way of life. If there is nothing sinful about ejaculation, why would it make a difference where it is done (other than the clear scriptural prohibitions against adultery, fornication, and one sex laying with the same sex as they would with another). However, the afore mentioned prohibitions usually have some deeper societal reason than simply “don’t do it there”. I could see where masturbation would have the same societal prohibition if a person preferred masturbation to marital sex. We also have the scriptural command to give our spouses their due. I am not sure the same would apply to a single person, or someone “taking care of a problem” when the spouse is not able (or for that matter, when they think enough of their spouse NOT to use them as a sex toy). In the latter case, it would be nice if the wife said “I’m sorry dear, but I am really tired tonight” you could reply “No problem honey, I can take care of this myself”. As it is, however, it seems that the only acceptable way to have sex is within the context of marital copulation. And yet, there are even those who would say that is “dirty”, particularly if either of the partners actually enjoyed it.

That is certainly something to keep in mind. It would be doubtful that God would lessen the desire for something that is OK to do. So, your experience is useful in arriving at a satisfactory conclusion to this question.

A wet dream is involuntary. You don't even know you're doing it. You're asleep. And well, the other one......

primuspilus

But a wet dream involves subconscious thoughts and yes many times people wake up in the middle of them and don't (or simply can't) try to stop . There is a whole school of thought which says that subconscious thought and desires should and can be controlled because they are products of our conscious desire for sin (I don't actually hold to that, but the theory does exist).

I take my priest advice that while masturbation is a disordered act and not a good thing to partake of, it still does not bar a person from reception of Communion. Receiving frequently can actually lesson ones desire to commit this act. I have recently found this to be true, I stood away from Communion for two years because of great confusion and desire not to make a sacrilegious reception of the Eucharist. However when I started to receive again regularly not that long ago, I noticed that my passion and desire to commit this act actually declined. I can't explain it other then it is the grace of God which is lessening my desire for this disordered habit, but it does seem to be true in my case.

How is it a sin? Its something that happens naturally like peeing the bed. Your body vacates the stuff all on its own.

How can you say it's natural? Nature is affected by sin and death, so we have no idea what "natural" bodily functions are. "It's natural" is the same argument the homosexual crowd uses. It may be natural to any of us, but that does not make it objectively natural.

I do not think that you can equate masturbation and homosexuality. My guess is that something greater than 99% of all males masturbate. I don't think that there are anywhere near that number riding on the Hershey Highway. Using this theory, one would seem far more "natural" than the other.

On the other hand, tying masturbation to homosexuality does bring the potential sinfulness of the former more into focus, particularly for those like me that consider homosexuality a sinful way of life. If there is nothing sinful about ejaculation, why would it make a difference where it is done (other than the clear scriptural prohibitions against adultery, fornication, and one sex laying with the same sex as they would with another). However, the afore mentioned prohibitions usually have some deeper societal reason than simply “don’t do it there”. I could see where masturbation would have the same societal prohibition if a person preferred masturbation to marital sex. We also have the scriptural command to give our spouses their due. I am not sure the same would apply to a single person, or someone “taking care of a problem” when the spouse is not able (or for that matter, when they think enough of their spouse NOT to use them as a sex toy). In the latter case, it would be nice if the wife said “I’m sorry dear, but I am really tired tonight” you could reply “No problem honey, I can take care of this myself”. As it is, however, it seems that the only acceptable way to have sex is within the context of marital copulation. And yet, there are even those who would say that is “dirty”, particularly if either of the partners actually enjoyed it.

Yeah, If I was married then I don't think this issue would be coming up at all (Although I do have friends who are what they would call "stable" relation ships who boast about masturbating two times a day on top of the relations they have). So I guess that marriage, while helpful is not a cure all for this.

Yes, I am well aware of those facts. This is not the only forum that I frequent, and I have seen some things in my life that I wish could be unseen. I just get tired of typing "homosexual", and I detest using the word "gay". The particular phrase in question seems nicer than some of the other terms that I have heard. And as to the anal issue; I am far more kindly disposed to the homosexuals than I am to the holier than thou evangelicals who, if they has as much poking out of them as they had in them would look like porcupines, yet think they are still virgins because they never had vaginal sex. And not just the girls, but the guys that don't think that oral and anal count as "real sex", so they are not committing fornication. That is one of the reasons that I think these kind of discussions are useful since they, hopefully, get to the root (no pun intended) of the issue, which is lust, and not just some contrived legal definition of the word "sex".

I do not think that you can equate masturbation and homosexuality. My guess is that something greater than 99% of all males masturbate.

That doesn't matter. 99% of males lie, commit adultery in their hearts, etc. too. Just because lots of people commit the same sin, does not mitigate its sinfulness.

And to homosexual people, it is as natural to lust after a fellow male or fellow female as it is for hetrosexual people to lust after the opposite sex. It does not matter how natural it is to other people, because naturalness is beside the point.

All sin is 100% unnatural when we compare ourselves to the innocence of prelapsarian Adam and Eve. Regaining that sinless innocence is our first step to theosis. "More" or "less" means nothing. It's not, so the degree only indicates the amount of struggle it will take to overcome.

In the latter case, it would be nice if the wife said “I’m sorry dear, but I am really tired tonight” you could reply “No problem honey, I can take care of this myself”.

Perhaps, but even that is not in line with the basic asceticism of Christianity. We don't just go and fulfill every urge that comes along. If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself. Just like we don't go and eat every time we want to, or go and flirt with every attractive person we see.

I do not think that you can equate masturbation and homosexuality. My guess is that something greater than 99% of all males masturbate.

That doesn't matter. 99% of males lie, commit adultery in their hearts, etc. too. Just because lots of people commit the same sin, does not mitigate its sinfulness.

And to homosexual people, it is as natural to lust after a fellow male or fellow female as it is for hetrosexual people to lust after the opposite sex. It does not matter how natural it is to other people, because naturalness is beside the point.

All sin is 100% unnatural when we compare ourselves to the innocence of prelapsarian Adam and Eve. Regaining that sinless innocence is our first step to theosis. "More" or "less" means nothing. It's not, so the degree only indicates the amount of struggle it will take to overcome.

In the latter case, it would be nice if the wife said “I’m sorry dear, but I am really tired tonight” you could reply “No problem honey, I can take care of this myself”.

Perhaps, but even that is not in line with the basic asceticism of Christianity. We don't just go and fulfill every urge that comes along. If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself. Just like we don't go and eat every time we want to, or go and flirt with every attractive person we see.

Perhaps, but even that is not in line with the basic asceticism of Christianity. We don't just go and fulfill every urge that comes along. If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself. Just like we don't go and eat every time we want to, or go and flirt with every attractive person we see.

Well really? That is your opinion. One could easily say that there is no excuse for the wife “not being interested” since there is a clear command for the wife (and this also applies to the husband) not to deny the husband in these matters. So, it would seem that scripturally it would be more acceptable to tell her “sorry, but it’s your duty” than to tell her “I’ll take care of it myself”. BTW – I do eat when I am hungry. I refrain from flirting because I read that is also forbidden for us married fellows.

Perhaps, but even that is not in line with the basic asceticism of Christianity. We don't just go and fulfill every urge that comes along. If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself. Just like we don't go and eat every time we want to, or go and flirt with every attractive person we see.

Well really? That is your opinion. One could easily say that there is no excuse for the wife “not being interested” since there is a clear command for the wife (and this also applies to the husband) not to deny the husband in these matters. So, it would seem that scripturally it would be more acceptable to tell her “sorry, but it’s your duty” than to tell her “I’ll take care of it myself”. BTW – I do eat when I am hungry. I refrain from flirting because I read that is also forbidden for us married fellows.

The is no variation of the fuehrer that could display the degree of disappointment here.

Thanks again for everyone advice. Again I'm going o continue to listen to the advice of my confessor on the matter. I thank all those who comments and am happy that you've helped ease my already troubled, OCD inflicted consciouses on this. It's important for us to trust the pastoral mercy and compassion that our confessors impart to us. Mine has been a priest for over fifty years (And is still Sharp as a tack). He's certainly "heard it all" in his day and I trust that his advice to me is sound (It seems to be helping me greatly).

Thanks again for everyone advice. Again I'm going o continue to listen to the advice of my confessor on the matter. I thank all those who comments and am happy that you've helped ease my already troubled, OCD inflicted consciouses on this. It's important for us to trust the pastoral mercy and compassion that our confessors impart to us. Mine has been a priest for over fifty years (And is still Sharp as a tack). He's certainly "heard it all" in his day and I trust that his advice to me is sound (It seems to be helping me greatly).

There ya go!!...I am very happy you have someone you trust and I trust you when you say his own thinking is sound!!

We also have the scriptural command to give our spouses their due. I am not sure the same would apply to a single person, or someone “taking care of a problem” when the spouse is not able (or for that matter, when they think enough of their spouse NOT to use them as a sex toy).

What happens if the wife doesn't take care of it? How far are we permitted to go to avoid letting our spouse commit such a grievous sin. May we resort to physical correction? What about those of us who are single? We just have to sit around and suffer, huh?

We also have the scriptural command to give our spouses their due. I am not sure the same would apply to a single person, or someone “taking care of a problem” when the spouse is not able (or for that matter, when they think enough of their spouse NOT to use them as a sex toy).

Even from a secular perspective, I cannot understand why sex is seen to be the one activity within the marriage which is exempt from the status of "duty".

Imagine this scenario:

*Wife comes home from a long day of work to husband who arrived home a few hours earlier*

Wife: Urgh, I had the worst day today -- I need to vent.Husband: Not today, honey, I have a headache.

No-one would tolerate this lack of regard for the needs and desires of the other in a non-bedroom context, yet somehow, according to the logic of the world, the only time sex can happen in a marriage is when both partners have an absolutely perfectly aligned desire for it.

I never understood the "I don't feel like it" excuse. Most people try to imitate logs as much as possible anyway, who would notice the difference? :P Lay down, let your significant other go at it, get up, move on.

My first reaction is to laugh, I'm sorry... but really I can't help it. Your reactions are killing me. :D My wife's sex drive was about 3 times higher than mine, and she was more than happy to be awoken in that way (with nice dream slowly becoming nice wake up call). However, I don't mean to offend, so I apologize if it offends you or makes you uncomfortable. Also, the "log" comment was mostly meant as a joke.

Perhaps, but even that is not in line with the basic asceticism of Christianity. We don't just go and fulfill every urge that comes along. If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself. Just like we don't go and eat every time we want to, or go and flirt with every attractive person we see.

Well really? That is your opinion. One could easily say that there is no excuse for the wife “not being interested” since there is a clear command for the wife (and this also applies to the husband) not to deny the husband in these matters. So, it would seem that scripturally it would be more acceptable to tell her “sorry, but it’s your duty” than to tell her “I’ll take care of it myself”. BTW – I do eat when I am hungry. I refrain from flirting because I read that is also forbidden for us married fellows.

The is no variation of the fuehrer that could display the degree of disappointment here.

So we are back to plucking out eyes again . . .

Fast much?

No. Found it only made me self-righteous and cranky. And don't insult the Fuehrer.

Nice! I like a little spark. Thank God, punch can take it in the spirit it is meant.

I think some of us would get on pretty well face to face...

More than might be imagined.

The one thing that I notice about people to whom I am particularly drawn here is the fact that they believe...I mean really and truly and genuinely believe the teachings of Scripture and the Church and live their lives to the best of their immediate abilities in that belief.

That to me is the rarest of treasures...to be able to walk that path in good company!!...scufflin' all the way, but in some strange way united.

What happens if the wife doesn't take care of it? How far are we permitted to go to avoid letting our spouse commit such a grievous sin. May we resort to physical correction?

No, but we may raise the issue with our spiritual father. The wife must carry out her marital duties as well, I never said anything to the contrary. But her failure to do so does not give the husband license to masturbate. Two wrongs don't make a right.

No, but we may raise the issue with our spiritual father. The wife must carry out her marital duties as well, I never said anything to the contrary. But her failure to do so does not give the husband license to masturbate. Two wrongs don't make a right.

If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself.

How about his wife taking care of it?

If he feels his wife is not fulfilling her marital duties, then they should go to their priest and talk about it.

But her sin does not give him permission to sin.

That presumed it is a sin.

I am operating from the assumption that it is a sin, since everything that we think, do, or say is a sin. However, I am also operating from the standpoint that it falls in one of those "fallen man" areas. Wouldn't it be better if we could all become Monks and spend our entire day praying and praising God instead of spending all day at work? Wouldn't it be better if none of us married and dedicated our life completely to the Church? Wouldn't it be better is none of us toiled all day to grow food, but waited in a ravine for the ravens to bring us bread because we trust in God and believe that He will supply us our daily bread? Yes, it would. But that is not the way things work. Even the Monks would not exist if someone did not give birth to them, and the word of God would not have spread had someone not built roads and ships. So when it gets down to it, would it not be better if all of us had nice marital relationships where both parties always lovingly and willingly took care of each others needs and questions such as these never came up? Yes it would. But life is not that way. Since about everything we do is a choice between the lesser of two evils, I have a lot less problem with a person spanking . . . oh well, I got in trouble last time I used a euphemism so let me rephrase that . . . I have a lot less problem with someone masturbating than I do with someone relieving themselves through fornication, adultery, or by using their spouse as a sex doll. Now, if someone is really all torn up about it, they should see a priest. You should always follow your conscience, particularly if it is telling you not to do something that is fun, exciting, tastes good, makes you feel good, or anything else that might bring the slightest twinge of human pleasure. After all, God put us on this Earth to be miserable and suffer for the sins of our race, and only through this suffering and austerity can we achieve Salvation. But since you are pretty well screwed anyway, you might as well go ahead and masturbate.

In case nobody noticed, the above was written pretty much as satire. I am just in one of those moods today.

In case nobody noticed, the above was written pretty much as satire. I am just in one of those moods today.

Maybe I am indeed grown too old, but I think you make far better sense when you play these things straight. It sounds more compelling to these old ears, and I am drawn to what you say in earnest mode. "Satire" is a tough style to play without making it sound too bitter or stereotyped and inauthentic.

In case nobody noticed, the above was written pretty much as satire. I am just in one of those moods today.

Maybe I am indeed grown too old, but I think you make far better sense when you play these things straight. It sounds more compelling to these old ears, and I am drawn to what you say in earnest mode. "Satire" is a tough style to play without making it sound too bitter or stereotyped and inauthentic.

M.

Yah. Needs more funny creatures and odd wardrobes for good satire. Maybe some talking horses, too.

If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself.

How about his wife taking care of it?

If he feels his wife is not fulfilling her marital duties, then they should go to their priest and talk about it.

But her sin does not give him permission to sin.

That presumed it is a sin.

So you don't think masturbation is a sin? How do you figure that?

Just for fun, do you know what masturbation is? I mean outside the the parlance of a high school looker room.

OK, to be fair, to those who study human sexuality?

And to use the general parlance, I am sure you can see what people mean by using their partner as tool to masturbate, even when they are having vaginal intercourse?

This question issue ain't so simple.

You insult my intelligence. Of course I know what it is, although vaginal intercourse is not masturbation, though I think I know what you are getting at. It is possible to use your spouse solely for selfish purposes (the sin of lust) rather than allowing sexual relations to be the mutual self-giving that God intended it to be, but that isn't the same as masturbation. Masturbation, in the broadest sense, is any non-vaginal sex acts, although that is irrelevant because you know as well as I do that that is not the subject of this thread. This thread pertains to solitary acts and typically amongst people outside of marriage.

If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself.

How about his wife taking care of it?

If he feels his wife is not fulfilling her marital duties, then they should go to their priest and talk about it.

But her sin does not give him permission to sin.

That presumed it is a sin.

So you don't think masturbation is a sin? How do you figure that?

Just for fun, do you know what masturbation is? I mean outside the the parlance of a high school looker room.

OK, to be fair, to those who study human sexuality?

And to use the general parlance, I am sure you can see what people mean by using their partner as tool to masturbate, even when they are having vaginal intercourse?

This question issue ain't so simple.

Yeah, that masturbation really has the making of sin, but not discussed so much. On the contrary, a married couple engaging in mutual masturbation to please each other lacks the characteristics of sin, despite what the Vatican, HV, and even some Orthodox (e.g. Fr. Josiah Trenham) state otherwise.

though I think I know what you are getting at. It is possible to use your spouse solely for selfish purposes (the sin of lust) rather than allowing sexual relations to be the mutual self-giving that God intended it to be, but that isn't the same as masturbation.

Masturbation, in the broadest sense, is any non-vaginal sex acts, although that is irrelevant because you know as well as I do that that is not the subject of this thread. This thread pertains to solitary acts and typically amongst people outside of marriage.

I once asked a fomer Jesuit seminarian on female masturbation, given the claim of the Onan incident as the scriptural basis of the teaching. He was utterly dumbfounded, and it was very amuzing to watch him go through the scholastic method to come up with an answer.

No, but we may raise the issue with our spiritual father. The wife must carry out her marital duties as well, I never said anything to the contrary. But her failure to do so does not give the husband license to masturbate. Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Marital duties"....how romantic. ::)

Marriage isn't about romance and happy joyful bliss. If one thinks it is, one is on the fast road to misery and divorce unless one changes one's expectations.

The priest who catechized me, who is actually rather liberal on many issues (liberal for Orthodox people, that is), made that abundantly clear in his 8 hours' worth of catechesis on the subject of marriage. Marriage is about the mutual salvation of the couple and creating children. That doesn't deny the existence of happiness and joy in marriage, because there should be, but happiness is not the point and should not be an overriding factor or a make-or-break point.

And to add my 2¢, from what I gather mutual masturbation between a husband and wife is still misuse of sex, as would be husband-wife phone sex or virtual sex. It's no different from sodomy between a husband and wife, and the Church has ruled that to be a perversion of sex. At least that's what the above-mentioned priest said, as did the canons he cited. Vaginal intercourse is the only form of sexual activity the Church blesses.

In case nobody noticed, the above was written pretty much as satire. I am just in one of those moods today.

Maybe I am indeed grown too old, but I think you make far better sense when you play these things straight. It sounds more compelling to these old ears, and I am drawn to what you say in earnest mode. "Satire" is a tough style to play without making it sound too bitter or stereotyped and inauthentic.

M.

True. But also consider that it is impossible to write satire unless one struggles with the very things he writes. Don't think those thoughts never crossed my mind, and do not be too sure that they have been completely overcome.

No, but we may raise the issue with our spiritual father. The wife must carry out her marital duties as well, I never said anything to the contrary. But her failure to do so does not give the husband license to masturbate. Two wrongs don't make a right.

"Marital duties"....how romantic. ::)

Marriage isn't about romance and happy joyful bliss. If one thinks it is, one is on the fast road to misery and divorce unless one changes one's expectations.

The priest who catechized me, who is actually rather liberal on many issues (liberal for Orthodox people, that is), made that abundantly clear in his 8 hours' worth of catechesis on the subject of marriage. Marriage is about the mutual salvation of the couple and creating children. That doesn't deny the existence of happiness and joy in marriage, because there should be, but happiness is not the point and should not be an overriding factor or a make-or-break point.

And to add my 2¢, from what I gather mutual masturbation between a husband and wife is still misuse of sex, as would be husband-wife phone sex or virtual sex. It's no different from sodomy between a husband and wife, and the Church has ruled that to be a perversion of sex.

Just to focus on this for a moment: the Church, or monks and monk wanna-bes?

Somewhere Aristokles posted a thread or something from the book I refered to here:

I just was looking again through "Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700" By Eve Levin, which has this interesting observation:

Quote

Medieval Slavic episcopal letters include considerable discussion of the question of sexual abstinence for priests during fasts. The discussion paralleled that on abstinence for the that laity. Archbishop Ilja of Novgorod espoused the most liberal view, ordering priests to give communion on Easter to those who engaged in marital intercourse during Lent. He inquired sardonically of the conservatives who demanded strict observance, "And you, being priests, how many of you wnat to serve, and on how many days do you seperate yourselves from your wives?" Bishop Nifon argued that restraint was recommended for the "white," or secular, clergy, if not for the laity, in imitation of Christ's fast, but it was not essential. The most conservative view required total abstinence for clergy and laity alike during the forty days of Great Lent. Atlhough this view originated aong the Greek Fathers, it was not included in the Greek nomocanons. The compilers of the Slavic version deliberately added it. This strict interpretation of the Lenten rules for the parish clergy became dominant in the Slavic Orthodox tradition in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Such ideas it seem failed to take root in the pastoral canonical praxis of the old lands of Orthodoxy, but they were cultivated in monastic gardens whence they were transplanted (via monks, the only literate class in society) in the new lands of Orthodoxy, where they were farmed out in the mistaken notion that they were staple in Old Orthodoxy, and spread eventually like Kudzu.

The fact that the monastic class were the predominant literate class, writing by, to and for monks, with the laity as an afterthought (all too often to extol the monastic estate before the married, to keep the latter humble-and in submission) has skewed much of Tradition, resulting in the large gap between the theology of the marrige rite, and much litereature touching on marriage.

Thank you both for your replies. That is how I see it in EO circles today. Many modern writers (priests and theologians) like Fr. Hopko have a more positive view of sexuality. As I study the Fathers and older writings in general I see the more negative views that I was not aware of before.

I have been reading a book, "Sex and Society in the World of the Orthodox Slavs, 900-1700" that goes into great detail about the penances the Church imposed for such things as not using the "missionary" position (one of the opposite positions incurred a penances ranging from 600 prostrations up to denial of communion for 30 years). One regulation even prescribed between 8-50 prostrations if a man dreamed about relations with his wife.

It makes me wonder if what we have today is a "watered-down" Orthodoxy.

P.S. I prefer to agree with the views of Hopko and others, yet I don't feel comfortable saying that the early Fathers were "wrong".

Not watered down, just fuller: we are not restricted to monastic literature, but now have writings by the Faithful Fathes (and Mothers!) who actually have experience of marriage. I suspect that the penitentials you speak about were written by monastics who had little or no experience of marriage. St. John Chrysostom was not totally able to get out of that context, but he did consider the issue of sterile couples, and fully endorsed them making love. He also stated that because of overpopulation (!), marriage was no longer needed, but stated that it continues as it is a good in itself.

As pointed out, it shows how the "canons" you refer to equate intercourse with the wife on top as "sodomy."http://books.google.com/books?id=IL382sYaohkC&pg=PA199&dq=Sex+Slavs+sodomy&cd=1#v=onepage&q=Sex%20Slavs%20sodomy&f=falseas well making no distinction between anal intercourse and vaginal intercourse from dehindhttp://books.google.com/books?id=IL382sYaohkC&pg=PA173&dq=%22Oriface+used+or+the+potential+for+conception%22&hl=en&ei=ZCsrTsrmOe79sQKhlvy0Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=falsewhich makes-(for instance, some women can't otherwise conceive, because of a tipped uterus; and in any case it is a position that enhances the chances of conception)-absolutely no sense. So too classifying contraception worse than abortionhttp://books.google.com/books?id=IL382sYaohkC&pg=PA176&dq=%22higher+penance+for+the+use+of+contraceptives+than+abortion%22&hl=en&ei=3S8rTqyhJ4OOsQLCsLHLCw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself.

How about his wife taking care of it?

If he feels his wife is not fulfilling her marital duties, then they should go to their priest and talk about it.

But her sin does not give him permission to sin.

That presumed it is a sin.

So you don't think masturbation is a sin? How do you figure that?

Just for fun, do you know what masturbation is? I mean outside the the parlance of a high school looker room.

OK, to be fair, to those who study human sexuality?

And to use the general parlance, I am sure you can see what people mean by using their partner as tool to masturbate, even when they are having vaginal intercourse?

This question issue ain't so simple.

You insult my intelligence. Of course I know what it is, although vaginal intercourse is not masturbation,

you just demonstrated you don't know what masturbation is.

It's committing the sin of lust within marriage, yes...but it's not masturbation. Vaginal intercourse =/= masturbation. Not all acts of lust and selfishness are masturbation. Masturbation is the manipulation of the sex organs for pleasure outside of intercourse. I've heard some people classify oral sex and anal sex as masturbation, but I think even that is a stretch from the usual meaning. To me, those are separate sexual sins altogether.

though I think I know what you are getting at. It is possible to use your spouse solely for selfish purposes (the sin of lust) rather than allowing sexual relations to be the mutual self-giving that God intended it to be, but that isn't the same as masturbation.

Yes, it is, if you are using a person as a sexual tool.

Again, sin of lust and masturbation are not synonyms. If that was the case then rape would be masturbation, and I don't know anyone that would classify it as such.

Again, sin of lust and masturbation are not synonyms. If that was the case then rape would be masturbation, and I don't know anyone that would classify it as such.

perhaps the survivor/victim.

So you think a if a rape victim went in to report what happened, they would say "a man attacked me and used my body to masturbate himself"?

Sometimes they do. I'm speaking from experience, as hearing the crime related by real live people. Not angels dancing on a pinhead examined by a pinhead.

You must know more rape victims than I do.

Comes with experience I suppose: I used to work in a psych hospital where such things were common in patient histories.

Perhaps we should continue this cheery subject on another thread, as this is no longer pastoral it seems. Or not.

Fine with me, though the thread was already way off topic before this conversation began. I'm not the one who expanded the term masturbation to include all the diverse sex acts besides just sex acts with oneself, which is the typical usage of the word and the topic that the OP had in mind.

Again, sin of lust and masturbation are not synonyms. If that was the case then rape would be masturbation, and I don't know anyone that would classify it as such.

perhaps the survivor/victim.

So you think a if a rape victim went in to report what happened, they would say "a man attacked me and used my body to masturbate himself"?

Sometimes they do. I'm speaking from experience, as hearing the crime related by real live people. Not angels dancing on a pinhead examined by a pinhead.

You must know more rape victims than I do.

Comes with experience I suppose: I used to work in a psych hospital where such things were common in patient histories.

Perhaps we should continue this cheery subject on another thread, as this is no longer pastoral it seems. Or not.

Fine with me, though the thread was already way off topic before this conversation began. I'm not the one who expanded the term masturbation to include all the diverse sex acts besides just sex acts with oneself, which is the typical usage of the word and the topic that the OP had in mind.

No, that's not the typical usage of the word, as "mutual masturbation" and other things are normally included.

No, I was clarifying what I meant by intercourse. Since you like to equate masturbation with pretty much any sex act I figured I better clarify. It's laughable that you say Humanae Vitae creates an artificial distinction between artificial contraception and natural family planning, yet you yourself claim that even marital intercourse can be masturbation. Umm wut?

Obviously some secular authorities would equate oral and anal activity with being intercourse as well, but it is at that point that I would object on theological grounds since, at least from a Catholic standpoint, those activities are disordered (except for oral which is acceptable in the context of foreplay). I have heard oral and anal sex being referred to as a form of masturbation in moral theology, but I have never heard of regular ol' vaginal intercourse ever being referred to as masturbation in any context.

I've heard some people classify oral sex and anal sex as masturbation, but I think even that is a stretch from the usual meaning. To me, those are separate sexual sins altogether.

LOL. What does Aquinas say?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Quote?

I'm asking YOU for the quote.

I don't have one. Since you brought it up I figured you had one in mind.

Your the one claiming the narrow definition of "masturbation," "intercourse," etc. Just thought I'd ask your authority on that.

I'm not appealing to theologians. I'm appealing to common sense and the common English usage of the words. You mind telling me why you think masturbation has such a broad meaning? I can give you quotes, but it comes from Merriam Webster:

masturbationnoun - erotic stimulation especially of one's own genital organs commonly resulting in orgasm and achieved by manual or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse, by instrumental manipulation, occasionally by sexual fantasies, or by various combinations of these agencies

Again, sin of lust and masturbation are not synonyms. If that was the case then rape would be masturbation, and I don't know anyone that would classify it as such.

perhaps the survivor/victim.

So you think a if a rape victim went in to report what happened, they would say "a man attacked me and used my body to masturbate himself"?

Sometimes they do. I'm speaking from experience, as hearing the crime related by real live people. Not angels dancing on a pinhead examined by a pinhead.

You must know more rape victims than I do.

Comes with experience I suppose: I used to work in a psych hospital where such things were common in patient histories.

Perhaps we should continue this cheery subject on another thread, as this is no longer pastoral it seems. Or not.

Fine with me, though the thread was already way off topic before this conversation began. I'm not the one who expanded the term masturbation to include all the diverse sex acts besides just sex acts with oneself, which is the typical usage of the word and the topic that the OP had in mind.

No, that's not the typical usage of the word, as "mutual masturbation" and other things are normally included.

Yes...but mutual masturbation is a far cry from claiming that even standard vaginal sexual relations can be masturbation, which is completely ludicrous.

No, I was clarifying what I meant by intercourse. Since you like to equate masturbation with pretty much any sex act I figured I better clarify. It's laughable that you say Humanae Vitae creates an artificial distinction between artificial contraception and natural family planning, yet you yourself claim that even marital intercourse can be masturbation. Umm wut?

Obviously some secular authorities would equate oral and anal activity with being intercourse as well, but it is at that point that I would object on theological grounds since, at least from a Catholic standpoint, those activities are disordered (except for oral which is acceptable in the context of foreplay). I have heard oral and anal sex being referred to as a form of masturbation in moral theology, but I have never heard of regular ol' vaginal intercourse ever being referred to as masturbation in any context.

I've heard some people classify oral sex and anal sex as masturbation, but I think even that is a stretch from the usual meaning. To me, those are separate sexual sins altogether.

LOL. What does Aquinas say?

I'm not sure what you are referring to. Quote?

I'm asking YOU for the quote.

I don't have one. Since you brought it up I figured you had one in mind.

Your the one claiming the narrow definition of "masturbation," "intercourse," etc. Just thought I'd ask your authority on that.

I'm not appealing to theologians. I'm appealing to common sense and the common English usage of the words. You mind telling me why you think masturbation has such a broad meaning? I can give you quotes, but it comes from Merriam Webster:

masturbationnoun - erotic stimulation especially of one's own genital organs commonly resulting in orgasm and achieved by manual or other bodily contact exclusive of sexual intercourse, by instrumental manipulation, occasionally by sexual fantasies, or by various combinations of these agencies

Again, sin of lust and masturbation are not synonyms. If that was the case then rape would be masturbation, and I don't know anyone that would classify it as such.

perhaps the survivor/victim.

So you think a if a rape victim went in to report what happened, they would say "a man attacked me and used my body to masturbate himself"?

Sometimes they do. I'm speaking from experience, as hearing the crime related by real live people. Not angels dancing on a pinhead examined by a pinhead.

You must know more rape victims than I do.

Comes with experience I suppose: I used to work in a psych hospital where such things were common in patient histories.

Perhaps we should continue this cheery subject on another thread, as this is no longer pastoral it seems. Or not.

Fine with me, though the thread was already way off topic before this conversation began. I'm not the one who expanded the term masturbation to include all the diverse sex acts besides just sex acts with oneself, which is the typical usage of the word and the topic that the OP had in mind.

No, that's not the typical usage of the word, as "mutual masturbation" and other things are normally included.

Yes...but mutual masturbation is a far cry from claiming that even standard vaginal sexual relations can be masturbation, which is completely ludicrous.

In case nobody noticed, the above was written pretty much as satire. I am just in one of those moods today.

Maybe I am indeed grown too old, but I think you make far better sense when you play these things straight. It sounds more compelling to these old ears, and I am drawn to what you say in earnest mode. "Satire" is a tough style to play without making it sound too bitter or stereotyped and inauthentic.

M.

True. But also consider that it is impossible to write satire unless one struggles with the very things he writes. Don't think those thoughts never crossed my mind, and do not be too sure that they have been completely overcome.

For a guy who doesn't like the RCC Pope, he sure tells people what to do and what the 'absolute truth' is, a lot. ::) And he's against Humanae Vitae, but he does find the, er, use of the hands acceptable.

If a husband is feeling aroused one night but his wife is not interested, then the husband has to live with it—not go and "take care of it" himself.

How about his wife taking care of it?

If he feels his wife is not fulfilling her marital duties, then they should go to their priest and talk about it.

But her sin does not give him permission to sin.

That presumed it is a sin.

So you don't think masturbation is a sin? How do you figure that?

Just for fun, do you know what masturbation is? I mean outside the the parlance of a high school looker room.

OK, to be fair, to those who study human sexuality?

And to use the general parlance, I am sure you can see what people mean by using their partner as tool to masturbate, even when they are having vaginal intercourse?

This question issue ain't so simple.

Yeah, that masturbation really has the making of sin, but not discussed so much. On the contrary, a married couple engaging in mutual masturbation to please each other lacks the characteristics of sin, despite what the Vatican, HV, and even some Orthodox (e.g. Fr. Josiah Trenham) state otherwise.

I think that the Church (Or any organized religion for that matter) Goes too far and crosses the boundaries of spiritual decency when they try to tell two conscenting adults how to have sex. Everybody gets off differently and some higher forms of sexual stimulation are necessary in order to properly please a person. Mutual masturbation may be the only way some people can experience erotic pleasure before vaginal intercourse (Or build up to it).

God created us to have sex within the boundaries of marriage and he made it pleasurable so that we would be encouraged to procreate. Can any type of sexual pleasure experienced within the married state actually be considered wrong or sinful? Aren't these ancient prohibitions against various non vaginal sex acts just Medevil hangups from a time when the Church had a more Platonic outlook on procreation?

Can any type of sexual pleasure experienced within the married state actually be considered wrong or sinful?

How about rape play? It might be consensual, but what about the potential psychological damage (for both people)?

I was talking about normal sexual activity outside of vaginal intercourse, not that sick stuff.

As a German, I may have a different definition of "normal" than you.

Are you thinking of stuff like the Armin Meiwes affair?

That affair was pushing it a bit, even for a German. I am thinking more in the lines of topless beaches, legalized prostitution, certain streets in Hamburg and Frankfurt where you can see the ladies "on display" in the windows, remembering that the first thing that I saw getting off the plane in Frankfurt in 1977 was Dr. Muller's Sex Shop right there in the airport. And we can't forget the German Poop Porn (even if you try - what is seen cannot be unseen). Yes, the Germans can be perverted, but they are open about it.

Popular culture can often be disgusting, and I don't think 'popular' is his use of the word 'normal'.

Really? I would say that when something is "popular" with the majority of a given population set over a sufficient amount of time, that becomes "normal" for that population.

How is the contradictory to what I said?

I don't know. You are the one who brought up "popular" when the discussion was about "normal".

I said his use of the term normal was not equal to what is popular, though that is often an argued definition.

I'm sure his use of the word stemmed from a definition of correct and moral behavior, as would be understood as good human conduct by the Orthodox Church and/or the Roman Church.

Normal to one who accepts relativism may very well conceive that normality changes with the 'norm' of the culture. However, for an absolutist, normal behavior, morality, etc. is always normal despite the trend and/or acceptance by a host people/culture/civilization.

There are several stories in which a little boy did this and was almost being taken to Hell. However Holy Mother of God saved him and while dead he wake up and asked for a priest to confess the sin of masturbation. After confessing he died and went to Heaven.

Masturbation enters under category of fornication with hand. There is a problem in our society by having false information that our health can suffer without a sexual life which is toltally wrong.

Effects of masturbation by Arsenie Boca book: changes to fizionimy (which I believe make a man with these changes lesslikeable by ladies), divorce because the man capacity can suffer, children can get stupid because masturbation can sever nervous links and this can get transmited to next generation and such. http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/selfabuse.aspxA young man once related the following to me. As a teenager, he was interested in sports, especially wrestling. At about fifteen, a teammate introduced him to the sin of self-abuse. Out of shame, he did not confess the sin. One day, a month later, he was wrestling at home, on the living room floor, with his older brother. Inadvertently, his brother, who was very hefty, fell on his chest with such force that he could not breathe and literally died. In this state, he observed his own body, the shock of his brother and his mother, who had rushed in to help him, and his soul, accompanied by his Guardian Angel, as it ascended above his house, high over the city where he lived, and finally into the heavens. He then found himself in a long, dark tunnel, at the end of which he saw a light and Paradise. As he entered into this light, he saw the Theotokos, who asked his Guardian Angel why he was there. The Angel then related to her the details of the boys death. At this, the Theotokos turned to him and said, Your mother has prayed fervently to me for your return, and my Son has granted her request. The boy, overwhelmed by the beauty of Paradise, begged to remain. The Mother of God, however, replied: No. For the sake of your mother, you must return. But hear me: You must confess the sin that you committed a month ago. This is a frightful sin, and unless you confess it to a Priest, behold what will happen to you. At these words, the Theotokos asked the Archangel Michael to escort him to a precipice that overlooked the torments of Hell. The view was so frightening that the boy almost fainted. Afterwards, he re-traced his path through the dark tunnel, down through the heavens, over the city in which he lived, over his house, and then into the room where his family was gathered over his dead body. Then, feeling a tremendous pressure on his body, his soul returned to its place and he opened his eyes. He then related to his family all that had happened to him. His grieving mother, on hearing all that he told them, gave thanks to the Theotokos for her intervention with Christ on the boys behalf, and, weeping uncontrollably, embraced and warmly kissed him.

+ + +Another teenage boy also fell to the sin of self-abuse and, again out of shame, failed to confess it to his spiritual Father. It so happened that he contracted a fatal disease and was dying. His family sent word to the boys Confessor about his condition, but were unable to find him before the boy died. At the time of his death, the young man's soul was seized by two horrible demons, which began to drag him to a place of terrible torment. In the meantime, the boys spiritual Father arrived at his home and found the grieving family. If you had come earlier, they cried, you might have prevented his death. Please, please bring him back. The Priest began to pray and, lo, a miracle occurred. The boy indeed returned to life. He immediately cried out to his Confessor, You have saved me. And he then began to relate to him his terrible encounter with the demonic forces that, just before his revival, were on the verge of casting him into Hell. Not knowing of the boys sin, the Priest asked of him, How could this have happened to you? Why would these demons claim your soul? The boy then confessed his misdeed. Do you sincerely repent of this, my son, the Priest asked. Yes, the youth replied. Are you sure? the Priest asked once more. The boy replied, O yes, Father! The Priest then continued: And do you want to go to Heaven? You mean I can be with my Christ right now? the boy exclaimed. His spiritual Father assured him that he could. Then I wish to die, the boy said, crossing his arms on his chest. The Priest made the sign of the Cross on the boy, and the youth, closing his eyes, blissfully reposed.

There is a devil associated with this sin. One man went to elder Arseny and asked him about this sin. He told Father Arseny he is dreaming a demon. Father Arseny showed him a picture with demons and asked the young man, which one and the young man selected one and Father Arseny asked him to look at the demon name and when he looked he read, masturbation demon.

Prayer can help dearly. Somebody went to a monk requesting help with this sin and he dreamed a demon. Some time later he heard a voice saying you do it one more time I am going to take the girl from you. He felt into the sin one more time and his family was broken and the girl was taken from him.

There are several stories in which a little boy did this and was almost being taken to Hell. However Holy Mother of God saved him and while dead he wake up and asked for a priest to confess the sin of masturbation. After confessing he died and went to Heaven.

Masturbation enters under category of fornication with hand. There is a problem in our society by having false information that our health can suffer without a sexual life which is toltally wrong.

Effects of masturbation by Arsenie Boca book: changes to fizionimy (which I believe make a man with these changes lesslikeable by ladies), divorce because the man capacity can suffer, children can get stupid because masturbation can sever nervous links and this can get transmited to next generation and such.

http://orthodoxinfo.com/praxis/selfabuse.aspxA young man once related the following to me. As a teenager, he was interested in sports, especially wrestling. At about fifteen, a teammate introduced him to the sin of self-abuse. Out of shame, he did not confess the sin. One day, a month later, he was wrestling at home, on the living room floor, with his older brother. Inadvertently, his brother, who was very hefty, fell on his chest with such force that he could not breathe and literally died. In this state, he observed his own body, the shock of his brother and his mother, who had rushed in to help him, and his soul, accompanied by his Guardian Angel, as it ascended above his house, high over the city where he lived, and finally into the heavens. He then found himself in a long, dark tunnel, at the end of which he saw a light and Paradise. As he entered into this light, he saw the Theotokos, who asked his Guardian Angel why he was there. The Angel then related to her the details of the boys death. At this, the Theotokos turned to him and said, Your mother has prayed fervently to me for your return, and my Son has granted her request. The boy, overwhelmed by the beauty of Paradise, begged to remain. The Mother of God, however, replied: No. For the sake of your mother, you must return. But hear me: You must confess the sin that you committed a month ago. This is a frightful sin, and unless you confess it to a Priest, behold what will happen to you. At these words, the Theotokos asked the Archangel Michael to escort him to a precipice that overlooked the torments of Hell. The view was so frightening that the boy almost fainted. Afterwards, he re-traced his path through the dark tunnel, down through the heavens, over the city in which he lived, over his house, and then into the room where his family was gathered over his dead body. Then, feeling a tremendous pressure on his body, his soul returned to its place and he opened his eyes. He then related to his family all that had happened to him. His grieving mother, on hearing all that he told them, gave thanks to the Theotokos for her intervention with Christ on the boys behalf, and, weeping uncontrollably, embraced and warmly kissed him.

+ + +Another teenage boy also fell to the sin of self-abuse and, again out of shame, failed to confess it to his spiritual Father. It so happened that he contracted a fatal disease and was dying. His family sent word to the boys Confessor about his condition, but were unable to find him before the boy died. At the time of his death, the young man's soul was seized by two horrible demons, which began to drag him to a place of terrible torment. In the meantime, the boys spiritual Father arrived at his home and found the grieving family. If you had come earlier, they cried, you might have prevented his death. Please, please bring him back. The Priest began to pray and, lo, a miracle occurred. The boy indeed returned to life. He immediately cried out to his Confessor, You have saved me. And he then began to relate to him his terrible encounter with the demonic forces that, just before his revival, were on the verge of casting him into Hell. Not knowing of the boys sin, the Priest asked of him, How could this have happened to you? Why would these demons claim your soul? The boy then confessed his misdeed. Do you sincerely repent of this, my son, the Priest asked. Yes, the youth replied. Are you sure? the Priest asked once more. The boy replied, O yes, Father! The Priest then continued: And do you want to go to Heaven? You mean I can be with my Christ right now? the boy exclaimed. His spiritual Father assured him that he could. Then I wish to die, the boy said, crossing his arms on his chest. The Priest made the sign of the Cross on the boy, and the youth, closing his eyes, blissfully reposed.

IRC, we dealt with this somewhere on this thread. In short, such "evidence" is like the Vatican's reliance on visionaries when thought won't sustain its argument.

There is a devil associated with this sin. One man went to elder Arseny and asked him about this sin. He told Father Arseny he is dreaming a demon. Father Arseny showed him a picture with demons and asked the young man, which one and the young man selected one and Father Arseny asked him to look at the demon name and when he looked he read, masturbation demon.

Prayer can help dearly. Somebody went to a monk requesting help with this sin and he dreamed a demon. Some time later he heard a voice saying you do it one more time I am going to take the girl from you. He felt into the sin one more time and his family was broken and the girl was taken from him.

Father Arseny was a monk near my city that let people witness "live" the miracles like in the bIble. So for me to believe Bible is natural. No the demons were painted on a Church I believe maybe as a way to indicate the authors of sins since Father Arseny was painter.

Father Arseny was a monk near my city that let people witness "live" the miracles like in the bIble. So for me to believe Bible is natural. No the demons were painted on a Church I believe maybe as a way to indicate the authors of sins since Father Arseny was painter.

Disbelief does not come into picture in this thread. Through confession this sin ca be erased.If this sin is overcome the vitality may come back. I admire the determination of some people to fight sin.

In normal times the Church directs behaviour with goal of sending people to Heaven. When I was youg the state regulated behaviour with what state deemed good for state. Like it become good to die for state instead of dying for Jesus. Now the companies regulate the moral. So what is good for companioes to sell stuff like preservatives so you can hear statistics of how much sex do different nations have as a way to drive up consume even if this destroys society and send people to Hell and make people sick. May God help us exit this situation.

So what is good for companioes to sell stuff like preservatives so you can hear statistics of how much sex do different nations have as a way to drive up consume even if this destroys society and send people to Hell and make people sick.

So what is good for companioes to sell stuff like preservatives so you can hear statistics of how much sex do different nations have as a way to drive up consume even if this destroys society and send people to Hell and make people sick.

What?

Now if you want to accuse pasadi of creating riddles . . .

Pure brilliance to me, not that I understand it usually. But I do know brilliance when I see it.

In normal times the Church directs behaviour with goal of sending people to Heaven. When I was youg the state regulated behaviour with what state deemed good for state. Like it become good to die for state instead of dying for Jesus. Now the companies regulate the moral. So what is good for companioes to sell stuff like preservatives so you can hear statistics of how much sex do different nations have as a way to drive up consume even if this destroys society and send people to Hell and make people sick. May God help us exit this situation.

Actually in context I think I get the point.

When the Church is able to govern then they pass laws which help people lead properly moral lives.

When the State is able to govern then they pass laws which help them to lead lives useful to the State with little regard for what the Church would want.

When multinationals govern then they pass laws (let's be honest) which increase profits with absolute no regard for what the Church would want nor God.

So what is good for companioes to sell stuff like preservatives so you can hear statistics of how much sex do different nations have as a way to drive up consume even if this destroys society and send people to Hell and make people sick.

What?

LOL. pasaia I gather is a native Romanian speaker. "prezervativ" is the word for condom. "preservatives" is "conservanți"

I remember when someone went home to the village, after decades in the US. When she was talking about life in the US, the villagers woundered about food lasting so long. She coulnd't think of the word for preservatives, so she just used the English. The villagers were quite shocked that the Americans packed their food in such things.

Disbelief does not come into picture in this thread. Through confession this sin ca be erased.If this sin is overcome the vitality may come back. I admire the determination of some people to fight sin.

I think we are working with different definitions of sin, and what it includes.

So what is good for companioes to sell stuff like preservatives so you can hear statistics of how much sex do different nations have as a way to drive up consume even if this destroys society and send people to Hell and make people sick.

What?

LOL. pasaia I gather is a native Romanian speaker. "prezervativ" is the word for condom. "preservatives" is "conservanți"

I remember when someone went home to the village, after decades in the US. When she was talking about life in the US, the villagers woundered about food lasting so long. She coulnd't think of the word for preservatives, so she just used the English. The villagers were quite shocked that the Americans packed their food in such things.

Romanian was my guess as well. No linguistic reason. Just the crazy brilliance seemed uniquely Romanian.

Btw, there is a Talmudic reference to "adultery of the hand" as being masturbation (it seems mentioned only twice in the whole of the Talmud), which some modern exegetes have linked to Christ speaking about plucking out eyes and cutting off handshttp://books.google.com/books?id=BYQETG1oFyQC&pg=PA524&dq=adultery+of+the+hand+masturbation&hl=en#v=onepage&q=adultery%20of%20the%20hand%20masturbation&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=X_nXKtNw7IwC&pg=PA122&dq=adultery+of+the+hand+masturbation&hl=en#v=onepage&q=adultery%20of%20the%20hand%20masturbation&f=falsebut I have not found any such interpretation from a Father, and I expect that they would have picked up on that if Christ intended it.

St. Thomas Aquinas taught that masturbation is worse than pre-marital sex: “And therefore simple fornication, which is committed without injury to another person, is the least kind of lust.”—Summa Theologica II.II.154.12. St. Thomas is basically saying that although both are mortal sins, masturbation is actually worse than the old fashioned consensual sex behind the barn of two young lovers. Why? Because masturbation is a direct offense against nature and the Creator who gives us the option for life. At least fornication is still open to life. (St. Thomas Aquinas never fathomed that there could be a Pill to kill 500 million tiny individuals every year.) But barring the topic of contraception and abortion, we can say this confidently: Masturbation does more harm to your soul than simply having pre-marital sex. (But abortion is worse than both, and most people who have pre-marital sex are mildly open to abortion. Even without abortion or contraception, God obviously does not want us to do either fornication or masturbation.) This is also why oral sex is worse than normal intercourse. I wish every Catholic high school student in this country could read this single part of my blog post. Many Catholic young adults believe they can receive Holy Communion on that same filthy mouth that did that sick sin as long as they didn’t do the one natural sin of fornication that at least reflects the marital act!

I find those which sin against the sixth commandment is worse discussions always at least mildly disturbing. As if this was ever relevant:"Son, if you ever are forced to choose between masturbation and fornication, make sure you go for the latter."Bananas.